207 Responses to GO AND BUY THE BODYSNATCHER COLLECTION IMMEDIATELY

I’m waiting anxiously for my DVD to arrive today. I stupidly pre-ordered from play.com cos I assumed it might come early but it was posted on Thursday so it could arrive today *fingers crossed*…..Shoulda just gone to the bloody store despite the extra cost.

Trying to decide if I should spoil myself and read your review before I see a single frame from the DVD (If you post it before it arrives)

I ended up pre-ordering it from Amazon.co.uk, largely because no other bugger’ll ship to the US. That said, I am actually flying back to England in about eight hours, so I could cancel the preorder now (Amazon haven’t acknowledged it, bizarrely) and buy a copy at Woolies while I’m in Luton.

Ha, yes it is not too good. However I think the hilarity factor of the grrrrreat audience more than makes up for it. Rob and Doug’s commentary is great though; they just take the piss out of it for half an hour.

Just watched The End: The Original Assembly and I thought it was brilliant, mainly from a interest point of view. However, some of the delivery and lines in there were much better than what we got! The ‘iguana’ line, for a start.

I think that The End: Original Assembly is interesting at least and the commentary I really like. Bodysnatcher certainly could have been a good episode but the commentary features a little bit too much watching and not enough talking. The docs are also fine.

The only downer so far for me in the collection is the text track which I think is poor and won’t make those episodes any more interesting than previously.

Can I ask what made the text tracks so poor? Obviously they can only do what text tracks do – there are technology limits, and the job was only to detail changes while cracking some gags -so the remit was never to make the episodes ‘more interesting’, especially.

I guess I’m asking: do you mean ‘not funny’ (which is fine if that doesn’t work for you)? Do you mean ‘not interesting’ (again, fine if that’s not your thing)? or do you mean ‘I’ve seen text tracks that work way better’ (in which case which ones, and what let ours down)?

I’ve only had time to watch The Bodysnatcher once with Comms then again with Comms and I think the commentary Rob & Doug provide is bloody funneh! I also like the Easter Egg from the subtitles menu too.

FWIW, I think the text tracks are great. Not perfect, obviously – there’s the odd joke that falls flat, but that’s completely and utterly inevitable when there’s nine hours worth of them – but… well, they made the Remastered shows worth watching, and that’s no mean feat.

> Can I ask what made the text tracks so poor? Obviously they can only do what text tracks do – there are technology limits, and the job was only to detail changes while cracking some gags -so the remit was never to make the episodes ?more interesting?, especially.

Well, my comment wasn’t meant to be a personal slight Andrew. I think that the decision to concentrate on changes alone causes the biggest problem. It means that you inevitably have to say the same things again and again and it also means that you have to say things like, ‘spin on for 3 minutes’ quite a lot.

I also think that Dwarf DVDs should be based solely around Dwarf related material and not have jokes about random subjects in them. That’s just a personal feeling and one which many people may well disagree with.

Basically I think that if the decision had been made to do text tracks which talked about all aspects of those series then they could have been really worthwhile. But John, and I’m sure other people, like the text tracks as they are which is fine.

What I adore about the Series 1 and 2 documentaries is that they’re so, SO packed with rushes. There are clips in there that could’ve easily been just clips from the show, but instread you get the live feed of the same clip and then a little bit extra after thew take. A small detail, but it’s *so* nice. And that’s even before I start gushing about the meatier rushes. Seeing glimpses of the whole set (who knew that corridor and vending machine was on the other side of the bunk room locker wall?) and Tony Hawks doing warm-up is just unbelieveably exciting. Then, of course, there’s Doug and Danny’s conversation from Better Than Life and Doug Naylor more than little frank about Norman Lovett’s attitude at the end. These are, by quite some margin, the best documentaries made for any TV show ever.

I’ve not read the text tracks yet, but I can imagine if the tracks covered things other than the differences it’d get way too crowded. Having gaps in the tracks (as I gather there are) gives the viewer time to catch their breath and actually still watch the episode properly.

> What I adore about the Series 1 and 2 documentaries is that they?re so, SO packed with rushes. There are clips in there that could?ve easily been just clips from the show, but instread you get the live feed of the same clip and then a little bit extra after thew take. A small detail, but it?s *so* nice. And that?s even before I start gushing about the meatier rushes. Seeing glimpses of the whole set (who knew that corridor and vending machine was on the other side of the bunk room locker wall?) and Tony Hawks doing warm-up is just unbelieveably exciting. Then, of course, there?s Doug and Danny?s conversation from Better Than Life and Doug Naylor more than little frank about Norman Lovett?s attitude at the end. These are, by quite some margin, the best documentaries made for any TV show ever.

I agree that those 2 docs are very good and the remastered doc is as well. Doug does kind of contradict himself in it though (unless I wasn’t paying attention properly).

> I agree that those 2 docs are very good and the remastered doc is as well. Doug does kind of contradict himself in it though (unless I wasn?t paying attention properly).

Re-Dwarf is very good, but I can’t help but get hugely annoyed with some of the comments made by Ed especially. Doug seems to be reluctant about some fo the changes made (his comments about the filmising didn’t seem wholly complimentary) but Ed is clearly still in love with the whole idea.

It IS a good idea though. It’s just nigh on impossible to execute in a satisfactory way, it especially was back then. I’m sure if it had been done now it would have been a lot better but still not perfect. George Lucas couldn’t even get it right.

What is? Replacing the model shots with CG? Re-grading the picture to boost? Filmising the picture? Re mixing the sound? Replacing Howard Goodall’s score with library music? Adding in video effects during the edit? Pretending the show was shot in 14:9 when it wasn’t?

I’d argue that only two of those ideas are good (re-mixing the sound and MAYBE regrading the picture) but the rest… they just really aren’t good ideas in any way, shape or form.

The problem being that the ‘idea’ of remastering has to include and majority of those, otherwise it’s not really a properly noticeable remastering. So, going by that logic, the whole thing was hugely misguided idea. I simply don’t buy that’d be better done these days, because you’re STILL replacing physical effects with CG, you’re STILL ripping out Howard’s music and you’re STILL making changes that are constantly battling with the original feel of the show and you’d STILL end up with a complete mess with dual personalities.

> I simply don?t buy that?d be better done these days, because you?re STILL replacing physical effects with CG, you?re STILL ripping out Howard?s music and you?re STILL making changes that are constantly battling with the original feel of the show and you?d STILL end up with a complete mess with dual personalities.

This I agree with. No matter how it was done, it was always going to be a very uneasy mixture of 1980s and 1990s. If you did it now then it would still be a very uneasy mixture. I can completely understand them making superficial changes to sell the show abroad but I don’t think that they knew when to quit. If they did the show nowadays then it would still be a two headed sex beast.

I guess. Certainly I don’t PREFER the remastered editions. But, in theory, a remastering process can be done right, even when going beyond basic clean-up. You only have to look at the new Blade Runner, or – bizarrely – what Lucas did to THX 1138.

>I?d argue that only two of those ideas are good (re-mixing the sound and MAYBE regrading the picture) but the rest? they just really aren?t good ideas in any way, shape or form.

Yeah, I remember seeing the Remastered “Saturday night…no one works Saturday night” scene from Balance of Power in a Remastered preview and thinking “Hmmm, this could be a good idea”.

And then I watched The End, saw a couple of horrendous CG (and series VIII style) skutters appear in the front of the shot FOR NO BLOODY REASON OTHER THAN TO DETRACT YOUR ATTENTION FROM THE TWO PROTAGONISTS IN THE FIRST SCENE OF THE ENTIRE SERIES and I realised it was going to be awful.

(They were Series IV skutters, dug up, repaired, filmed in front of bluescreen and composted. This message was brought to you by the campaign for NO MORE ‘VIII-STLE CG SKUTTER’ LIES!!!!)

I get what the added skutters were for, though – there’s a long, long pause in the scene when they come along, and it’s meant to help with that. But in an ideal world you’d have tightened that by using the rushes.

However, I suspect that the The End re-shoot rushes are mostly lost, in that Lost Ark kinda way. Certainly I couldn’t find much sign of them. I have a feeling that lack is what led Doug to suggest another option..no matter how insane.

> So it did no good for the show at all?
> Whatever the creative opinion, Ed surely has a legitimate perspective – he?s justified in that the project he worked on achieved what it set out to do.

All my points are purely from a creative point of view. It’s clear what the financial advantages of the remastering was, but it’s pretty irrelevant seeing as it hasn’t actually achieved anything tangible for the fans (such as, say, movie funding.) It’s great that new fans were created in Japan and wherever, but I’d argue that those fans would’ve fallen just as much in love with the originals, it’s just whoever did the buying for that territory was as obsessed with shiny CG as everyone else in Television around that time.

>(They were Series IV skutters, dug up, repaired, filmed in front of bluescreen and composted. This message was brought to you by the campaign for NO MORE ?VIII-STLE CG SKUTTER? LIES!!!!)

Oh yeah, this sounds familiar. I just assumed it was CG because it was so piss-poor. It doesn’t really change my point about being distracting but I agree that it’s beneficial to tighten up the pace of scenes. I just don’t think it’s worth doing 10 years later.

The problem with going back and changing stuff is that films/episodes don’t really “belong” to the likes of Lucas, Scott or Naylor once they’ve been released/shown to a wide audience. Series I-3 was done and dusted, it was loved, the models were awesome…there was no need to change any of it.

I always got the feeling that these were intended to replace the originals (just like Star Wars 1997 etc) and that was certainly carried across with the pencil Dwarf being featured on merchandise and these being released on DVD in other shores.

I’ll never get over how daft the idea was (no disrepect to Ed, who’s great despite his recent output).

Can you imagine them going back and remastering Fawlty Towers with broken windows?.

Oh sure. But neither Ed, nor, really, anyone else working on the thing can wholly come from that perspective.

Also, he’s entitled to his own tatse. Remember the comments from America when Series I came out on DVD? “Why have they replaced the ship with crappy models?” You can’t win.

> it?s just whoever did the buying for that territory was as obsessed with shiny CG as everyone else in Television around that time.

But it’s not the CGI it’s the whole package. The Remastered wasn’t done in order to add CGI – the project was begun with every intention of replcing models WITH models. So it’s about making the whole thing ‘newer’, and the grade, film effect and stereo sound mix all achived that.

I genuinely don’t believe the success in Japan would have happened without it. Because people DO get put off by stuff that looks old. A mainstream audience has its own demands.

> I always got the feeling that these were intended to replace the originals (just like Star Wars 1997 etc) and that was certainly carried across with the pencil Dwarf being featured on merchandise and these being released on DVD in other shores.

Well, the merchandise thing came about in 1998/9, when it was also the ship used in the most recent series. Plus we have next to no stills of the original ship – seriously. Nothing of good size and quality. Whereas the new ship CGI was used to knock up some new shots.

The DVD releases abroad have – as I understand it – mostly been for reasons of dubbing. Plus they are the versions of the show that those audiences are familiar with.

I thought the ‘not a replacement’ statement was made pretty clear with the first DVD release, to be honest. Until then, though, nobody knew where they stood – not helped by the regular series VHSs being withdrawn. (A commerical decision from BBCWW, not a creative choice.)

> Wait, how could the skutters be filmed in front of a bluescreen? THEY?RE BLUE! :)

I think you’ve just stumbled on why it is, exctly, that they look so rubbish…

> Well, my comment wasn?t meant to be a personal slight Andrew. I think that the decision to concentrate on changes alone causes the biggest problem…

In response to this, I hope it was clear that I took nothing personally! It was the wording I queried. (In this thread you describe the docs as being ‘fine’, which is hardly a glowing endorsement…but later you describe them as ‘very good’. So I was just looking for some clarification rather than take the one word as the whole story.)

Not liking the thing I get. But ‘poor’ suggests a failure to do something that was intended, rather than simply being a feature that isn’t to your taste. ‘Pointless’, ‘repetitive’, ‘ill-conceived’ or ‘unfunny’ I can understand, but it wasn’t sold as something different from what you got, so I just query the choice of word.

But okay, if you wanted them to do something other than what they set out to do, I guess that’s a disappointment. Off-topic jokes felt like a Holly kinda thing to do to us, and it’s really no different from cracking jokes in a commentary. Additional trivia was considered, but we really had no info left after the docs, commentaries and booklets.

>Also, he?s entitled to his own tatse. Remember the comments from America when Series I came out on DVD? ?Why have they replaced the ship with crappy models?? You can?t win.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I never saw the remastered episodes here in America. My PBS affiliate carried the originals, and the videos I purchased all had the originals as well. If it hadn’t have been for the internet, I would never even have known they existed…and apart from Amazon or some similar service, I don’t think I would have been able to own them even if I wanted to.

I don’t know what kind of exposure the remastereds got over here, but if my own experience is anything at all to go by, it must have been significantly smaller than the originals had got/were getting.

> Not liking the thing I get. But ?poor? suggests a failure to do something that was intended, rather than simply being a feature that isn?t to your taste. ?Pointless?, ?repetitive?, ?ill-conceived? or ?unfunny? I can understand, but it wasn?t sold as something different from what you got, so I just query the choice of word.

Well, I wrote that post very quickly so that’s probably why the wording was off. If I were to give a proper review of the text tracks then I would say that they are overly repetitive but that was basically unavoidable once the decision had been taken to concentrate only on the changes.

> Off-topic jokes felt like a Holly kinda thing to do to us, and it?s really no different from cracking jokes in a commentary.

That’s interesting. If you (or anybody else who didn’t work on those first 3 series) recorded a commentary with off-topic jokes in it then I would be saying the same things. Similarly, if Rob and Doug had written the off-topic jokes for the text tracks then I wouldn’t mind at all.

> Additional trivia was considered, but we really had no info left after the docs, commentaries and booklets.

That surprises me. I think that there are other things that could have been mentioned such as: differences between the novels and the series, changes between series, which ideas were recycled from Son of Cliche, more info on the guest stars and what they had done immediately prior to Dwarf, what members of the cast and crew worked on between series, what sort of ratings did the remastered episodes get and when were they broadcast etc. Some of this stuff has been mentioned to some extent elsewhere of course but I think this sort of thing could have filled up the text tracks and made them a lot less repetitive.

>Ok. I guess that help decreases all of the time as well though as Japan is the land of the fad and the Japanese are a shallow race. It would be difficult for any film with an entirely middle aged cast to be a success over there.

Lol. But it would only be offensive if it were groundless. I’m not saying that a Dwarf movie would have no appeal in Japan but for any movie with a middle aged cast (and 2 black actors) to reach the mainstream would be very difficult.

Presumably the commentators were Japanese? In which case they’re kind of allowed to say that kind of thing.

Whatever, I’m not putting up with blanket statements like that on this site. Because I *do* consider it racist, and – from what I can see from Japanese culture – groundless. I allow a lot of leeway with comments on this site, but I have my limits. Please retract the statement, or don’t post here.

This is why ‘The End: Re-Re-mastered’ maybe should have been done for this release (not that there isn’t enough on there!) just to prove that it was possible to do it well. Anyway, just like with Trek the original version of the series exists on DVD seperate from the Re-mastered episodes and, unlike with Lucas, it’s always been clear that the Re-mastereds 1-3 aren’t the DEFINITIVES, they’re more like an experiment and also something done to help sell the product overseas. It’s not like the model shots are being erased from fucking history.

I think the film effect – something I didn’t like on the VHS release – looks a lot better on DVD.

> Presumably the commentators were Japanese? In which case they?re kind of allowed to say that kind of thing.

> Whatever, I?m not putting up with blanket statements like that on this site. Because I *do* consider it racist, and – from what I can see from Japanese culture – groundless. I allow a lot of leeway with comments on this site, but I have my limits. Please retract the statement, or don?t post here.

Well I’ve removed the comment as asked John because I’m not trying to upset anyone here. I only mentioned it because i felt it was relevant to what was discussed on the DVD. I certainly wouldn’t claim to be an expert on Japanese culture but an awful lot of the textbooks, articles and dissertations that I’ve read on the subject by scholars (Japanese and otherwise) say the same thing. That doesn’t make any of those people racist in the slightest.

> Well, I wrote that post very quickly so that?s probably why the wording was off.

Thank goodness you didn’t use the same hurried wording in an Amazon review or anything… :-)

> That?s interesting. If you (or anybody else who didn?t work on those first 3 series) recorded a commentary with off-topic jokes in it then I would be saying the same things. Similarly, if Rob and Doug had written the off-topic jokes for the text tracks then I wouldn?t mind at all.

You’re right – this IS a very interesting perspective. There’s much analysis could be done about the perceived boundaries you’re talking about. It’s not like Rob and Doug build the sets, sew the costumes, design the video covers and hand-craft the merchandise. At what point is ‘supervised, collaborated and approved’ not enough. Generally I’d say it’s limited to scripts for actual episodes…

> I think this sort of thing could have filled up the text tracks and made them a lot less repetitive.

So you’re saying the content you’d have added – much of which, as you say, HAS been covered elsewhere – would have REPLACED the ‘changes’ information? If so, doesn’t that fundamentally miss the point?

As to the offensive Japanese comment – I’ll join the thanks in seeing it removed.

Also, the suggestion that something with two black leads would struggle in the Japanese mainstream kinda ignores the show’s huge success on the country’s BBC1 equivalent!

> Thank goodness you didn?t use the same hurried wording in an Amazon review or anything

I didn’t use the word ‘fine’ in the amazon review. I do think that the text tracks are poor and I think that that is a fair one word description of them. If other people disagree then that is fine but it is essentially a quick way of summing up my feelings about them.

> You?re right – this IS a very interesting perspective. There?s much analysis could be done about the perceived boundaries you?re talking about. It?s not like Rob and Doug build the sets, sew the costumes, design the video covers and hand-craft the merchandise. At what point is ?supervised, collaborated and approved? not enough. Generally I?d say it?s limited to scripts for actual episodes?

No need for the hostility. I will explain again, The sets that are built are Dwarf sets, the costumes are Dwarf costumes, the video covers feature pictures of Dwarf on them, the merchandise features Dwarf images on them. Any jokes that you have written for the text tracks have nothing to do with Dwarf at all. That’s the point. That’s nothing personal again but you had nothing to do with the first 3 series and some of the jokes have nothing to do with Dwarf. Therefore, imo, they shouldn’t be on the DVD.

> So you?re saying the content you?d have added – much of which, as you say, HAS been covered elsewhere – would have REPLACED the ?changes? information? If so, doesn?t that fundamentally miss the point?

I didn’t say it would replace all of the changes info. But it could be used instead of some that is repeated episode after episode. Also if you have other info in between it would seem a lot less repetitive anyway.

Also I didn’t say that much of it had been covered elsewhere. Some but I think there were other things that could have been used and it would have been better than having valid 3 minute gaps. A valid enough opinion I should think.

>As to the offensive Japanese comment – I?ll join the thanks in seeing it removed.

I think I’ve already explained this. This is a valid opinion held by experts on the country.

>Also, the suggestion that something with two black leads would struggle in the Japanese mainstream kinda ignores the show?s huge success on the country?s BBC1 equivalent!

Huge success? Omid Djalili has a BBC1 show but that doesn’t mean that Iranians don’t generally struggle to reach the mainstream here.

Black people do struggle in the Japanese mainstream. It is well known and has been discussed by experts on many occasions.

I didn’t say you did. You used ‘poor’, though. About which you said, quote:

“Well, I wrote that post very quickly so that?s probably why the wording was off.”

Only, later:

“I do think that the text tracks are poor and I think that that is a fair one word description of them.”

I’m not saying anything about the opinion, only the wording, which I concur was off. But I’m concurring with the you of a few hours ago, rather than the one reacting now!

You noticed the smiley face too, right? I mean, you do realise we’re not all out to get you?

> No need for the hostility.

I was being sincere! Read it again! I’m saying the ‘what belongs?’ issue a curious area and worth exploring. I was genuinely asking where the line is drawn, and chucking in some mildly-OTT examples – because it’s a collaborative medium, TV, and automatically relies on more than a single authorial voice. That, to me, lies interestingly alongside a franchise as a whole.

For the record, I think the need to draw such lines in the sand is only useful on rare occasions, but it’s a debate that would interest me.

You read ‘personal’ into the last thing, now ‘hostile’ into this one. Neither was either. Honestly.

> Any jokes that you have written for the text tracks have nothing to do with Dwarf at all. That?s the point.

Nothing? At all? even the ones that refer to the show?

So the website’s invalidated for the same reason?

Or is it that they accompany the episodes – if they’d been listed online it would have been okay?

Do the new effects and sounds count as Dwarf or not? When does a show stop being worked on? Do the docs count as genuine Red Dwarf?

Or are you saying that the text track would have been fine so long as it had been dry, information-only text? (Despite this not being at all in keeping with the show’s ethos.)

For that matter, if I tell you which lines are Doug’s, do they get an exception? :-)

> But it could be used instead of some that is repeated episode after episode.

We considered dropping repeated info – mostly the title, captions and credits – but decided that people would dip into any episode and so nothing could be a ‘given’.

> Also I didn?t say that much of it had been covered elsewhere.

To quote: “Some of this stuff has been mentioned to some extent elsewhere of course “

I crave your pardon for taking ‘some to some extent’ as ‘much’.

> A valid enough opinion I should think.

Where do I say anything about the opinion being invalid? I asked for clarification, not an attack!

For the record, we thought about adding guest cast credits and other such info, but after a while with the old Who DVDs decided against it. It seemed to ‘ripped from the IMDb’, too much like padding.

It was felt that people would respect us better for not endlessly padding, and that people who liked the show would prefer some humour with their facts – just as they like their sci-fi with a bit of comedy.

Your opinion on these choices has been noted. Genuinely.

> Huge success? Omid Djalili has a BBC1 show but that doesn?t mean that Iranians don?t generally struggle to reach the mainstream here.

Well, okay, but that’s not the point I was making. You said the film would struggle given the leads’ ethnicity. But that didn’t hamper the TV show which DID break big in Japan. I’m not talking about ‘black people’, I’m talking about our actors – who seem to go down just fine with the general Japanese audience.

> I think I?ve already explained this. This is a valid opinion held by experts on the country.

I was thanking you for your tact in removing something I found offensive. Constantly repeating that it was ‘fine, actually’, kinda undermines that.

And yes, that one line there, we can be clear on this: that was hostile.

> I was thanking you for your tact in removing something I found offensive. Constantly repeating that it was ?fine, actually?, kinda undermines that.

> And yes, that one line there, we can be clear on this: that was hostile.

Well I will make one last comment on that subject. If there are negative things about any country (including the U.K.) then people from any nation should be able to comment on them as long as they have done their research.

Now I personally am offended by aspects of Japanese culture which dictate that foreigners with blond hair are more likely to find work than foreigners with dark hair, that white people are superior to black people and those from the sub-continent no matter what theire personalities or backgrounds may be, that teenagers in huge numbers have been willing to sell themselves to middle aged men to earn money to buy fashion accessories etc.

You however are offended by me being offended by that and expressing it. That I found offensive. That’s all.

> that teenagers in huge numbers have been willing to sell themselves to middle aged men to earn money to buy fashion accessories etc.

When I was 15 I sucked off a man in the toilets of Preston train station and used the money to buy an N64. OK OK I admit I’m lying, it was in the passport photo booth, but seriously the point is…the point is reading this thread makes me want to break things, so please stop with the pointless bickering and negativity.

. . .but for any movie with a middle aged cast (and 2 black actors) to reach the mainstream would be very difficult.

Christopher B is beautiful at any age. Sweet thing that he is.

I truly think a cast with two black actors would be a strong marketing tool in the US. The African-American demographic will pay to see a movie with black lead actors. Tyler Perry is laughing all the way to the bank.

So, I’m confused, are we saying that African Americans are a shallow race, now? If I just film a black person saying some appropriate ‘lingo’ I can make million in Hollywood? Cos, if so, I’m SO there. Phil can do the screenplay.

Well, my point is more that major media is extremely willing to portray African Americans as living stereotypes because it sells well. It’s very rare that a major distributor will take a gamble on a black person in a lead role who isn’t fulfilling some major stereotype.

Studios are afraid of it. It’s no reflection on African Americans or the actors who play those roles (at least, not necessarily)…it’s a reflection on the film industry’s inability to stray very far from passive racism.

Uh, I’m not being racist at all – the farthest thing from it. Should I have said “strong lead actors?” How is stating the fact that movies with black leads draw big box office in the US a racist comment? Geez, you can’t say anything without people taking it the wrong way.

I was a teacher at a predominantly African-American high school and I loved those kids as if they were my own children. Two of my best friends are black. I’ll tell them you think I’m racist.

It’s the problem with any blanket statement summarising an entire goup. And with quick posts online.

Clearly ‘black audiences’ (who aren’t, obviously, as easy to summarise as that) don’t autmatically flock to just anything simply because it includes black actors. Not ALL films with black leads succeed in the black-American demographic.

Which is what was said, but (I suspect) not quite what was meant.

As an observation, it’s certainly valid to note that the enthicity of our cast can be played up in appropriate promotion. Just as, say, Bond films and games have posters for Japan that play up the involvement of Japanese (or Chinese) cast members.

It’s also valid to note that the show was/is (as a massive generalisation) successful among the black-British audience. And maybe the ethnicity of the cast plays a part in that. I think Danny would say so, and has done. But then, it was also successful among the white-British crowd…and we don’t attribute that to the fact that Chris is white!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tyler Perry’s work is predicated on using black-American stereotypes, delivering ‘familiar’ characters or situations. It’s directly targetted stuff, deliberately built for a specific audience. Which is a very different state of affairs to our show. Red Dwarf has only once made any reference at all to the ethnicity of its leads. So it’s not directly comparable.

Nonetheless, I do think the targetted marketing point is partially valid. It’s done a lot, and with good reason.

Oh, it’s just the bit in Back to Reality where Rimmer and Lister are to be described as brothers…but only sharing the same mother. It’s an extra detail that’s only there to acknowledge the casting. But not something that sticks out, or is made a fuss of.

I don’t think it would be genetically impossible for two people of Craig & Chris’ skin tones to have the same two parents. But it would have to be rated as highly, highly unlikely.

What’s odder about that line is that they both have the same mother and different dads – yet they’ve both got the same surname [and the whole point of them being [half-]brothers is to break “Billy” by having him be an “alkie drop-out yak-coat-wearer” while “Sebastian”‘s rich as Cr?sus when they both came from the same start in life.]

Haha. Actually, I hope that didn’t genuinely ruin anything for anybody…I just thought it was an interesting point. (And extra points for it having taken me more than…oh…20 or so viewings to even realize it.)

But there is a way to explain it away…something I’ve used before in other instances (though I fail to remember them right now).

Kryten is the one who explains that Rimmer could no longer blame his parents…Rimmer doesn’t tell us this. As an outsider, all Kryten can do is make (comparatively very) educated guesses and arrive at his conclusions based on those. He’s not an authority on what is actually happening in Rimmer’s head…he can only summarize what he thinks is happening.

Rimmer doesn’t contradict him, but, then again, he’s recovering at the time from a clearly traumatic hallucination and probably isn’t in any condition or argue over niggling details.

Actually, it seems I fucked Gunmen all on my own, in the form of ‘spelling’…

Actually, I think the show’s version still holds water -Rimmer’s able to blame his failings on his family, until that family somehow elevates Lister, stupid, moronic Lister, to success. In Rimmer’s mind, his brothers were capable, intelligent people, people that he idolised. So their success is, at least in part, on merit – no matter how much he’s jealous of it.

But Lister?! That pointless, toe-rage loser? That proves it – he’s being victimised, it can’t possibly be deserved.

I always saw it as Rimmer having his face rubbed in it, that someone like Lister, the yin to his yang, embodied the success of his real- well, not real- brothers. Also just to clarify I never noticed the black/white thing either, but that could be explained by me first seeing that ep when I was about 6! In fact I’m not sure I even *realized* Craig Charles was black at that point… oops.

There are several Doug lines that were recorded as part of a second interview, recorded at the Rob/Doug commentary session. We found that a few thing weren’t as clear, as direct and straightforward, as they might have been.

The mis-match on the audio quality bugs me hugely. Thanks for pointing it out.

The mis-match on the audio quality bugs me hugely. Thanks for pointing it out.

I’m sorry… I’m sure you realise I’m part of the “wanted to get the facts right” crew than the “ooh, major conspiracy” bunch anyway – and it’s not that noticeable, unless you’re the sort of person that notices these things.

But, what I would like to know is what order you interview people in. Because, although from good research and just letting them speak, you must get some of it (and then editing takes over), there must be things that you only find out in one of the interviews – many things that Doug has then been able to “clear up”. But is he actually done last? Is anyone else done in a particular order for the same reason?

It’s worth checking out reddwarf.co.uk. Every year the DVD Details articles gave dates and running orders for all the interviews…

Every so often we do get a new fact from someone too late to asking anyone ELSE about. I think we did Andy DeEmmony before Robert Llewellyn, so when Robert told us about the ‘South African’ teasing that went on, it was too late to go to Andy and ask him about it. Thankfully, that kind of thing hasn’t been too common, though.

What is wrong with having images on a site which use ‘alt’ tags? Have I woken up in a parallel Universe where that’s not accessible any more? Does this parallel Universe also contain a John Hoare who isn’t bothered about accessibility?

Sorry, my mistake. I just took the blanket assumption that the separation of structure and style in XHTML had this one exception. Doesn’t stop it being bad practice, though, and only there to justify the using of CSS for decorative images, which is something I don’t really see as important, anyway seeing as you can easily set your client to ignore them.

> Jonathan: I *really* don?t see what your problem with me is? If you don?t like me, please don?t disregard what I have to say.

I’m disagreeing with what you have to say and how you say. That’s not the same as disregarding. I didn’t had a problem with you before you turned into a grand prick. Look back at your messages and you’ll probably find the tipping point.

> (Oh, and if you want to play the web standards expert, stop referring to attributes as tags.)

I didn’t, I used a variation on the very, VERY common term ‘alt tag’ to describe the ‘alt’ attribute. And I find it really fucking hilarious you’re getting snotty at ME for ‘playing the web standards expert’ when you’ve been squirting your web standards juices all over us for the last few weeks, for fuck’s sake.

> Sorry, my mistake. I just took the blanket assumption that the separation of structure and style in XHTML had this one exception. Doesn?t stop it being bad practice, though, and only there to justify the using of CSS for decorative images, which is something I don?t really see as important, anyway seeing as you can easily set your client to ignore them.

Actually, before you reply to this I’ve spotted the massive hole in my logic. I’m tired and fucked off and this why I shouldn’t post on the Internet inder such conditions.

It’s a fair enough position to take and an interesting topic, it’s just I’m loath to hear you going on about it when all it really boils down to is you being incredibly rude one note about it all. You’re not really discussing anything, you’re just holding up a megaphone and shouting everyone down. Can’t you see how many people you’ve riled with your tone?

When it comes to separating style and structure, I don’t see a huge amount of technical difference between having an in-line style element or an in-line image… they’re still defining style within the structure document, so technically they’re both wrong to be there. But, hey, W3C seems to allow them both… and I’d argue that properly placed in-line images just as much to do with structure than style, anyway. But it’s something I’m going to think about more, as I can do with all the accessibility issues I can get my hands on for my Final Project at Uni!

Just, please, stop sticking the knife in whenever you get the chance, cos it’s really, really pissing some people off. Hence my less than friendly tone in this thread, which I apologise for.

People get riled when you act like a self-righteous shitbag. Whether they agree with or appreciate the criticism becomes secondary.

And rightly so. You’re a human being. You know when you’re being condescending and when you’re not. Other people are human beings as well. They can get hurt. They owe you nothing and are not obligated to bend over and take it when you want to speak that way.

We’re not idiots. And I say “we” to mean ALL of us…visitors and admin alike. We know when people are being shits just as well as the shit knows he’s being a shit. It’s all fine and good to step back at the end of it and say, “B-but wait! I didn’t mean anything by it! I was just trying to help!”

Because you’ll fool nobody. Not us, not yourself. We know the difference. So do you.

Either apologize when you’ve hurt someone or move on. But do not throw it back on the victim in the first place and expect them to feel foolish for “misinterpreting” your “valuable” “input.”

The thing I find weird about the so called web site experts who offer ‘help’ in a demanding and better-than-you kind of way, insulting their peers on route, is that they seem to generally miss the whole point.

The vast majority of internet users know nothing of ‘alt tags’ and ‘XTML’ codes and much of the jargon thrown about is largely a foreign language. I speak as a dunce, my only interest is the content and perhaps my fellow users. As long as I can click on a page and read what’s there, I’m happy. The content here is excellent and it’s not difficult to navigate. As with reddwarf.co, I would say the vast majority of visitors are more than happy and, I should add, delighted that the the show they love is still covered and very active.
What I’m not so happy with, and it happens quite a lot, is that a thread of great interest to many is highjacked by a clever dick making issue of the way things are done in an insulting manner (Rude is probably the word and not for the first time).

Perhaps, the sooner the ‘experts’ realise that the vast majority of users want content and simple usage above all else the better.

Interestingly, the comapany I work for have talked to numerous people over the years about building a website and frankly have been completely blinded by science. many groups have merely tried to bamboozle us into spending more money on stuff we dont need. John however, did the job to everyones satisfaction, provided everything we need and discussed everything at a level even I could follow, well done that man.

Personally, I think this is why sites like ‘MySpace’ and ‘Facebook’ are doing so well, it’s ease of use and none of the technical bollocks..

I mean, in honesty, I’m of two minds about it. One: people do sort of have the right to control what’s on the internet with their name attached to it. But that’s counterbalanced by two: removing all trace of yourself from a discussion demonstrates a clear refusal of accountability for everything you’ve said.

I guess if somebody came here and made some sort of singular post that they later thought was in bad taste (or something) and they felt more comfortable removing it with the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn’t think any less of them.

But for somebody to just sweep through and delete everything they had to say in a discussion that they themselves started…that just strikes me as pure immaturity, and not at all worth defending.

I’ll say this on the matter, before I ask John to remove this account, my other account and all content on both accounts.

I lurked on this site, for a long time, and eventually decided to post, and when a topic I felt confident and passionate about arose, I posted.

I don’t think a web forum is the best place for criticism, as it puts people immediately on the defensive, and if there were an obvious way to contact Andrew offline about this, like an email address, I would have done that instead.

It should be possible for someone to remove what they say from a discussion forum if they choose, just as it should be possible to post anonymously.

I think I’ll leave it at that. John, if you could do the honours please.

I’ll say this on the matter, before I ask your mother to abort you and all content related to you.

Attitude is everything. I’ve seen John field criticism. I’ve given him a fair amount of it myself. I’ve seen Andrew field criticism. FAR more than I’ve ever seen ANY official representative of ANYTHING field on a fan-site.

Neither of them are obligated to endure abuse in the process of fielding criticism. Which is what you evidently expected them to do.

Maybe that’s how you have discussions in your personal life. I have no idea. I don’t want to know and I’m not interested. But how you got this far along without being able to tell the difference between honey and vinegar is beyond me.

More likely you realize you were being an ass. Which is why you deleted everything you wrote. Good. I’m glad you realize that. Now if only you could have been the bigger man and apologized instead, something constructive might have actually come from it, instead of your final self-pitying whimper.

I think I’ll leave it at that. Matt’s mother…if you could do the honors please.

> I find it disappointing that admins tell you to ?Stick it up your arse? when you ask them to delete things you post on their site, especially when they?ve blocked you from doing it yourself.

What you were doing was deliberate vandalism. If you had no intention of coming back to the site, then why have you felt the need to come back, try to remove all trace of you being here (despite the fact that most of your worst comments are quoted in other posts) and THEN start up another account to bitch about the fact that I took exception to your aforementioned vandalism? I’ll be fucked if I let you ruin any of the conversation flows on this site just because you fancy being a petty child and disguising it as some sort of right.

Unlike a lot of site, a great deal of G&T main content comes from comments. They’re hidden away in a forum that can have locked threads and be forgotten about. You were deliberately fucking up these conversations out of spite.

> All I did was edit my posts, removing them. Something I really shouldn?t have to do – I should be able to remove my account, deleting all content and my contact details from the site.

Why should you?

> There is no option to do that, so I edited my posts manually.

There was certainly an option for you to ask us to remove the content before wilfully fucking everything up. At least then we could’ve had a proper conversation about it rather than you forcing me into a reaction.

> I have contacted your hosting provider to request this material is taken down, as you are clearly unwilling to do so.

Yep, that’s definitely going to persuade us to see eye-to-eye with you. Another fine decision.

Let’s not drag this out any longer, like your hosts say on their own site “Freedom of expression is great – but be aware that shit rolls downhill. I won’t be carrying the can for any indiscretions. You want to enjoy this nice cheap server? keep the lawyers’ fees to a minimum.”

Don’t craft another reply to this, just delete all of my posts, all my personal information and all my accounts.

The DPA doesn’t have anything to do with the deleting of posts. Removing your profile is unrelated to that, and is a service offered, not a de facto right. If G&T want to keep ’em up, that’s their prerogative. Spouted public statements are not data under protection.

More importantly, the DPA doesn’t have a position on HOW your profile data is removed, anyway – say, by emailing the runners of a site. It doesn’t have to at the touch of a button. That ain’t the law.

Seriously, you think a lawyer anywhere will take to court a fan site that doesn’t share its data with anyone, and doesn’t contact you directly unless requested? “You honor, the site in question did not delete his account until he emailed.” “Um…that’s okay, isn’t it? That’s how it’s meant to work.” “Well sure, but they maliciously kept his voluntary statements on their site.” “Okay, you did GO to law school, right? Cos I’m pretty sure that’s nothing to do with me…”

Good job on the continued research/stalking, though. It’s awfully endearing.

Y’know what, let’s go for something sincere, since we all know you’ll still be reading.

We don’t post a simple and direct mail address for a reason: people like you. I could spend my days replying to emails from people convinced they know best, or I could get some work done. Plus I can’t think of a time when someone who’s wanted to hasn’t been able to reach me. Via the webboard if no other way.

Well-intentioned or not, the debate got heated for one reason: your attitude. I find criticism useful. I find ranting useless. The problems come from people who think they’re being constructive but aren’t, they’re just spouting. It’s a monologue.

You use sarcasm, you get called on it. The smart response is “Sorry, I could have been less of a twat when making my point.” The dumb response is, “That’s not sarcasm, man, it’s a wake-up call.”

You get called, you own up. It’s how grown-ups behave. You don’t just shout louder.

I can’t begin to express how aggravating it is to respond sincerely only for the person you’re speaking to reply with more of their own ranting, totally ignoring what you’re saying. Or worse, responding if you said something other than you did. People without the facility to comprehend the nature debate, who are incapable of concession.

Give AND take. That’s how it works.

Repeatedly telling people how you know better – by implication, of course, more than them – and ignoring real-world logistics doesn’t help anyone. You make yourself impossible to take seriously.

I think there is a difference between comments and content. If you post on a web forum, or comments on a website, you should be expecting to “surrender” them to the public domain. They are, of course, officially our copyright, as we agreed to nothing different on signup. (T&Cs and a copyright statement would be a really good idea guys, you’re a big and busy site and liable to get into trouble if not really careful)

But after that discussion with Andrew in the Copysnatcher thread, I’m not going back and deleting it all. Those comments make me look arrogant and stupid, because I can’t get across what I actually mean to say. But I understand they need to stay there. It’s part and parcel of being online. You win some, you lose some. I lose more than most. If I was bothered, I would post from an untracable* address.

It really annoys me when people delete what they say. It happened in another forum I’m on recently as well, and was just as bad. Someone lost an argument, and deleted everything they said. It’s bad manners more than anything.

Matt is quite right in that he has a right to delete his account. Facebook is currently coming under fire for the same thing. He’s also quite right in that the posts are his copyright. But I think a judge would rule in favour of G&T.

Yes, I think you’re right. It’s one thing to delete content on a site that you actually own, or edit – if it’s your blog, then I think it’s your right. But I simply don’t believe that if you put comments in a public forum, you have the moral right to pretend they never existed. Particularly if people have responded to them – removing your words is disrespectful to anyone who has taken the time to reply, because it renders them devoid of context. Obviously, it’s not hypocritical to change your mind, or regret something you’ve said, or simply want to stop any further criticism that people are aiming at you – but you should be willing to admit that, and leave the original comment there. You should qualify, not remove, your original words.

Sadly, not enough people actually think before they post comments online, and that leads to people wanting to “take back” things when they get a negative reaction. People need more conviction in what they say, basically, or they need not to say it at all.